Is the Constitution at fault for the mess U.S is in?

[AGENDA21]

Does anybody feel Constitution needs Amending..? if so what would they be..?

[JuniperLea]

1. Death to treasonous scum

who ignore The Constitution...

[oregonjen]

2. We need to prevent one party rule

[AGENDA21]

6. I do seem to get the feeling

this administration isnt following the Constitution...it seriously needs Amending!!!

[jody]

3. Amending? NO! Congress and SCOTUS should just do their duty. n/t

[rzemanfl]

4. Constitution is fine, people are fucked up. n/t

[leftstreet]

5. Jefferson & Madison's 11th Amendment would be nice

Jefferson and Madison proposed an 11th Amendment to the Constitution that would "ban monopolies in commerce," making it illegal for corporations to own other corporations, banning them from giving money to politicians or trying to influence elections in any way, restricting corporations to a single business purpose, limiting the lifetime of a corporation to something roughly similar to that of productive humans (20 to 40 years back then), and requiring that the first purpose for which all corporations were created be "to serve the public good."

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0101-07.htm

[wtmusic]

7. The problems started when we got away from the Constitution nt

[BlueEyedSon]

8. Not amended, just enforced as is..... nt

[oregonjen]

9. How can it be enforced when there is one corrupt party controlling

everything?

[BlueEyedSon]

10. I guess that's a problem.... but in that case amending it isn't possible

either

[tocqueville]

11. both the US constitution and the use of it

As I see it the main Problem with the US Constitution is the too strong Presidential powers and the role and prerogatives of the Supreme court. This gives a concentration of power which is explosive if it comes in the wrong hands. For example the role of the Supreme Court is unique compared to other western democracies...

The second problem is "constitutionalism". Many Americans (even on DU) don't see the constitution as only a frame that settles the organisational rules of a democratic country, but as the "law". There is kind of a resentment against majority rule which is the base of democracy. There is a myth of "republic" contra "democracy" when the two concepts have nothing to do which eachother.

The US constitution unlike other western constitutions has been very little unchanged since its orginal writing. So there is a lot of translation from what was intended or not by guys that couldn't foresse what would happen 200 years later.

The normal process is that an elected body passes laws. These have to be constitutional of course. In most countries there is a check BEFORE the law is passed if the law is constitutional. In the US it's often the contrary. In reality the guys ruling the USA are the 9 on the Supreme Court. Ted Kennedy said that explicitely in his "anti-Alito" speech. FDR knew it, and he tried to change it and failed (he was accused at that time to be constitution hater)... For example the whole abortion story could have been for once settled if passed as a law (and setting rules for appliance of that law) instead of a for me completely obscure translation of non-written rights to "privacy" (specially when this right is one of the minors in the abortion question).

So IMHO some wise people should rethink the system and put it to a referendum. But this will only happen after the Second American Revolution...

France has a similar discussion, even if the constitution is only 55 years old. Many here want to go towards a more parliamentary system, even if the French system is semi-presidential and not presidential...

Well I guees I'll get flamed for that...

[Tamyrlin79]

12. Nullification Amendment

Personally, I think the flaw is that, outside of amendment, the state level has no way of checking and balancing the federal level. Although I don't subscribe to the earlier version, where a state passes a law to "nullify" the federal law within it's borders, I do think that a nullification process with a lower supermajority of states should be able to nullify a law or administrative rule(but not a Supreme Court constitutional decision, as that would still need a constitutional amendment). Anyway, it takes 3/4 of the states to amend. Why not have it where 2/3 of the states can "veto" all or part of a federal law or rule. Alternatively, you could then give congress the power "check" that state-level veto (as with the presidency) by re-passage by a 3/4 (or some similar)margin.

Everyone who believes in states rights will support it, as states will then have a means of defending themselves without 1) waiting on congress to pass an amendment for their consideration or 2) enshrining opposition to some smaller measure into the Constitution. But it would allow the states to officially say "No" to something without having to deal with all the hoopla that goes into the passage of actual Amendments.